• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    The Verge has such a hard on for this story. They’ve published like ten articles about it already.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      To be fair, it’s the most interesting story the verge has covered in about, well, as long as the verge has existed.

      This is a big deal - it’s going to shape the entire tech industry for the foreseeable future. And it’s going to drag on in court and probably also congress for years and years.

      Apple is the target of the lawsuit but the DoJ is also telling every other tech company what rules they need to operate under. The last decade of “just do whatever you want” is over.

      • vinyl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        They have an entire story covering the US v Microsoft case. You should give it a read.

  • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Edit: an upstream comment led me to be able to find this article which does a way better job of explaining the DOJ complaints:

    https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107669/doj-v-apple-apple-watch-messaging-digital-wallets-lock-in

    Honestly, I would be happy if Apple addressed all of these things as long as doing so has absolutely zero chance of degrading my experience as their customer.

    My original comment:

    Apple already announced that it’ll be supporting RCS sometime this year. Cloud streaming games have been available on iOS for years now, but prior they had to be a Web App and as of earlier this year that is no longer the case. Now they can be a regular app in the app store.

    Superapps are hot garbage and should be banned. But WeChat exists on iPhone so I am honestly confused about this one. What features is it not allowed to have?

    The NFC and wallet issue is a thing still.

    The watch thing is a head scratcher. What API does Apple Watch currently use which 3rd party watches don’t have access to? Because it seems like Apple is being blamed for other companies not making better products.

    • Batbro@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m surprised they didn’t mention that every browser is just re skinned safari

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Right?

        The complaints that they did list, many aren’t valid anymore. But they didn’t call out a lot of common complaints.

    • nymwit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t think you can reply to a text message using a third party watch on iOS but you can with your Apple watch. I’ve seen that cited as an exclusive API.

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yes yes. Apple Bad pls upvote me.

        But in this case I pointed out some things that are wrong with the DOJ’s complaints, one thing that is valid, and asked questions about two that nobody, and my searches, have answered. They seem to also be completely wrong on the DOJ side.

        I doubt you use their products or will be affected by them being altered in any way, but I do and will, so this case interests me as do the details.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I doubt you use their products or will be affected by them being altered in any way

          I use a MacBook pro daily but even if I didn’t major lawsuits against monopolies affect me and everyone else

          • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Fortunately for you, this lawsuit doesn’t involve the Mac.

            Fortunately for the rest of us, Apple doesn’t have anywhere near a monopoly in any industry, which is honestly where this case should be dismissed.

            If you have to take a specific month out of the year, limit the region, and define a category as “performance” to get your numbers fudged and you still only get to 70% you’re not exactly making a strong case for a monopoly.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      Superapps are hot garbage and should be banned.

      What the hell. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be banned

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Let me put it this way, superapps rely on harvesting and exploiting massive amounts of user data for profit, which is much worse than anything that Apple does. That aspect should be banned.

        The quality of the service or content they provide is not my preference, but that’s not what I was referring to as hot garbage in this case.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    Imagine you’re a government lawyer working on the US case and you show up to a deposition and pull your iPhone out set it on the table.

    What are the chances that your Apple ID and iCloud are mysteriously banned for violations of the terms of service for which Apple can’t share the specific reason because of “policy related security reasons” before the week is out?

    • dtrain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s called “ retaliation” and Apple would have to be pretty fucking stupid to do that to the prosecutors at any point, let alone in the middle of a dep.